301–310 of 617 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What do you mean by "seen out", exactly? Committing a crime of moral turpitude as a non-immigrant (and even some green card holders) makes you eligible for deportation. [1] [1] https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/legal-re...
Some years ago (as I remember this) it was allowed to deport any non-citizen who had committed a crime that could lead to a year or more incarceration - is that no longer the case?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you be in US customs in a Canadian airport? I didn't know that exits.
Not sure if parent is talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_border_precleara... or not, but yes, that's a thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you make that argument then the customs officers are also NOT on US soil and have no authority to search phones (or do anything) at all
It depends on the entry point. If I go through US customs in the Toronto airport, it's on Canadian soil. If someone there is having an issue with the process, they can withdraw their entry request and leave. That's perfectly fine and they shouldn't be punished for it. You don't have that option if you use a land crossing as you're physically inside the US.
Since August 15, US border agents in Canada are now able to prevent you from withdrawing if they detain you. (Bill C-23)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure about the legal justification, but I don't think that is true in practice. For example a tourist or someone on an expired visa (edit: or an unexpired but non-immigrant visa) doesn't have the same 2A rights as a US citizen or permanent resident.
> For example a tourist or someone on an expired visa (edit: or an unexpired but non-immigrant visa) doesn't have the same 2A rights as a US citizen or permanent resident. AFAICT, that’s the practical effect of a holding of an single intermediate appellate court this year on an issue that while important on its own was kind of a side issue in a campaign finance case, and the rationale seems a bit wobbly; and it's log…
There are a variety of federal laws that codify that as well, and I think they're all unconstitutional also.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As Taniwha pointed out above[0]: > If you make that argument then the customs officers are also NOT on US soil and have no authority to search phones (or do anything) at all [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21518813
Even if that's true, that simply means the search moves a few feet to US soil, where they stand on one side of the border and you stand on the other. And they don't have to let you in if you're not a US citizen or lawful resident.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Sounds like the Court got it right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people get off on power, and this job is as close to having power over people as some can get. As long as you know you're not actually carrying contraband or is a terrorist, just smile, comply when reasonable, and then say politely that you'd like to see their manager to file a complaint.
Weirdly enough this isn’t much of an issue in most other parts of the world.
There is hope for the US, hard to believe with the current state of affairs.
They let the border pigs keep all of the illegally and coercively stolen private information from the thousands or millions of phones they've already imaged (under the basis of "it was believed to be legal at the time"), so not really. Third-party doctrine lets them silently access your emails and IMs and texts at rest, and Section 702 as well as creative definitions of "access" let them sniff them all in transit. Pr…